School of Architecture

Looking Out, Looking In: Structure for Student Success

Thirty-four mandatory student
outcomes assessed by a third party might be seen as an onerous
burden, but Spencer Leineweber, Professor of Architecture and
Graduate Chair, sees it as a good system [that] absolutely
strengthens the program. The Architecture program structures
its curriculum around student outcomestermed "Student
Performance Criteria" by the National Architectural
Accreditation Board (NAAB)and relies on that structure to
ensure there are no gaps in the students knowledge.
[Students] know the Criteria are issues that they need to
learn to be future architects, Spencer said. Were
definitely dealing with a certain knowledge base thats needed
to graduate to become an architect. However that knowledge
base and mandatory Criteria do not force too rigid a structure
upon teaching; faculty still have the freedom to be creative.
Its remarkable how the exact same Criteria are met in
different ways, she said. Spencer sees this creativity within
her own department and in other schools that she reviews as
part of her work on NAABs visiting accreditation teams.

One
of the primary methods Architecture uses to assess its students
learning is a portfolio of student work that each student is
required to submit as a culminating product of their first three
years of study. You can see the holes of whats supposed to be
taught. You can see it very clearly in the portfolio review,
Spencer said. The portfolio consists of student work primarily
from the design sequence, which is a major credit sequence in
the Architecture program. Thus it serves both as a comprehensive
review of the program and also a review of the students
individual learning. Students are also asked to submit a written
statement evaluating their personal development and the schools
approach to architectural education. They are asked to think
about their learning and reflect on their learning and what
their strengths are, Spencer said.

The portfolio review brings
faculty and students together in a robust dialogue. All the
faculty is involved in the portfolio review, Spencer said.
The student is reviewed by three faculty members. . . .
Theres a guideline and [students] are given a grading sheet
as well to see how theyre being evaluated. After the review,
students are encouraged to meet with their reviewing faculty
to discuss their performance. For the visiting NAAB team, the
faculty are required to choose examples of a high and a low
pass from these portfolios. Low passes for the NAAB are
important, Spencer noted, because they want to know that all
students coming through the program are meeting the Criteria,
not just the really good students. The portfolio serves three
roles: it gathers together student studio work that NAAB needs
to see for the accreditation visit; it is used by students as
they enter the job market; and it is a vital tool for program
review.

Assessment in Architecture is
highly product-oriented and where there are gaps in the
product, Spencer approaches them from a program perspective.
She counsels faculty to view criticism from a program level.
The piece that you have to take out of it is criticism of the
instructor, she said. Because you get a met or a not met
in the evaluation process, if youre teaching the course that
suddenly becomes not met it can be demoralizing. You have
to take it out of the personal[from] you didnt do this, you
better do it next time or youre in trouble [to] you know,
were missing this piece, wheres the best place to do it? In
order to avoid missing anything in her own classes, Spencer
asks her students mid-semester to write an anonymous card
detailing what theyve learned that they thought was
instructive and what they didnt yet learn that they thought
they should be learning. I like it because it gives great
feedback and its remarkable how the classes are different
from year to year, she said. The [classroom] assessment is
the correction tool in terms of getting feedback on how to
improve, because we have very specific things were supposed
to be teaching, if [students] are not getting them you
definitely have to adjust.

Architecture distributes the
work of assessment around the school to ensure everyone is
involved in the process. Its a good system, Spencer said.
We have to make sure that the faculty understand what they
have to be teaching and the students understand what they have
to be learning . . . its a minimum standard. For programs
not bound by strict accreditation requirements as Architecture
is, Spencer remains emphatic that assessment is a great tool
. . . Thats the way you get feedback on whether what you
thought you were teaching is actually what theyre getting,
she said. And thats essential I think.

School of Architecture

Keys to Success

Give students guidelines and grading sheets to ensure
transparency of evaluation.